believe, at the beginning of the day, and reject it at its end, so that they may turn back.’”

“‘And believe no one except those who follow your religion’—say, ‘True guidance is Allah’s guidance’—‘lest anyone be given the like of what you have been given.’”

His words, “lest anyone be given,” complete the statement of the People of the Book. That is, “out of aversion to His bestowing it”; this is the object of “believe.” Yet the two are separated by His words, “Say, ‘True guidance is Allah’s guidance,’” which constitute an intervening sentence, not part of the speech of the People of the Book. Which, then, is the greater separation: between a verb and its object, or between an exception and the statement to which it applies? If the exception’s application to the final clause is not certain, it need not apply to that clause. Indeed, the context may provide stronger grounds for applying it to the first. Our case falls into this category, as explained above.

Third is his statement: “If entitlement is established unequivocally by the endower’s wording, and nothing is established that modifies it, that entitlement must be upheld.”

Our first response is that our case does not fall into this category. The wording, “for his children, then for their children,” does not unequivocally establish that one generation succeeds another as a whole, for it can also mean that individuals succeed individuals. This response, however, is required in our particular case when addressing someone who wishes to bring it within the general scope of that statement.

There are also those who say from the outset: “We do not concede that entitlement is established unequivocally by the endower’s wording in any instance where it is followed by an exception or a condition. Wording is unequivocal only when it is not connected to something that modifies it. Since modification is possible, the condition for its being unequivocal is in doubt. And whenever the condition for